Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
Online results
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DavidGrahamJones" data-source="post: 1496083" data-attributes="member: 245335"><p>That's because everyone on this forum is singing from a different song sheet to the one used by our GPs. We can't blame them, their hands are tied. It's called NICE, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28/chapter/1-Recommendations#blood-glucose-management-2" target="_blank">https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28/chapter/1-Recommendations#blood-glucose-management-2</a></p><p></p><p>I haven't checked the numbers exactly but I think this document will explain why further action wasn't taken. It's section 1.6.5 Targets. The numbers you quote may not be exactly within the ranges specified but sometimes I think there's an element of allowing for inaccuracies and they might not worry about the odd mmol/mol here or there.</p><p></p><p>Doctors use the HbA1c as the gold standard, despite it's inaccuracies. I usually have one annually, not 6 months or a year because they know I monitor continuously. I did go through a patch of complacency and got a shock last christmas but while I monitor continuously I don't have to worry too much about the HbA1c and certainly wouldn't rely on it as the only way of measuring my BG. Surely your personal BG monitoring must have warned or indicated an HbA1c that you wouldn't like.</p><p></p><p>So really between May 2016 and April this year your regular BG monitoring would have shown some issues. A good reason why monitoring is necessary.</p><p></p><p>1.6.9 looks very interesting.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DavidGrahamJones, post: 1496083, member: 245335"] That's because everyone on this forum is singing from a different song sheet to the one used by our GPs. We can't blame them, their hands are tied. It's called NICE, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. [URL]https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28/chapter/1-Recommendations#blood-glucose-management-2[/URL] I haven't checked the numbers exactly but I think this document will explain why further action wasn't taken. It's section 1.6.5 Targets. The numbers you quote may not be exactly within the ranges specified but sometimes I think there's an element of allowing for inaccuracies and they might not worry about the odd mmol/mol here or there. Doctors use the HbA1c as the gold standard, despite it's inaccuracies. I usually have one annually, not 6 months or a year because they know I monitor continuously. I did go through a patch of complacency and got a shock last christmas but while I monitor continuously I don't have to worry too much about the HbA1c and certainly wouldn't rely on it as the only way of measuring my BG. Surely your personal BG monitoring must have warned or indicated an HbA1c that you wouldn't like. So really between May 2016 and April this year your regular BG monitoring would have shown some issues. A good reason why monitoring is necessary. 1.6.9 looks very interesting. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
Online results
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…